i really dislike the word "misinformation" / "disinformation." it's presumptuous to assert that you know what constitutes "information" and what constitutes "not information" and underhanded to make it an implicit part of the frame so it's harder to notice and object to
Conversation
it's awkward that english doesn't appear to have a word for the opposite of a lie
which is *not* a truth. it's a statement which may be true or false but which is being reported honestly in good faith
do we seriously not have a word for this? come on
16
15
106
"social media should simply institute policies making it harder to spread misinformation" pretty much exactly translates to "social media should simply institute policies making it harder to spread opinions i disagree with" which is just very bad
4
20
145
people who are spreading plague conspiracy theories or w/e in good faith are *trying to do it right*: they have actual opinions about important things and they are trying to improve other people's lives by telling them about it
this is normal prosocial human behavior
Replying to
the bigger problem, as i see it, is that we no longer have the luxury of being able to pretend that we agree collectively on an answer to the question "whose job is it to make sense of the world"
2
4
62
whose job did it used to be? idk but if i had to bullshit about it, first the church and then TV? at some point the cover story was "scientists"
but now it's nobody's job and everybody's job. lots of people are applying for the position and it's an uncomfortable power scramble
2
5
70
anyway everyone knows the real answer: it's scott alexander's job. glad he's back
2
1
95
this bullshit right here
Quote Tweet
Today we’re introducing @Birdwatch, a community-driven approach to addressing misleading information. And we want your help. (1/3)Show this thread
1:01
5.1M views
6
15
lol
Quote Tweet
ah great the twitter "birdwatch" thing is getting used to flag complaints about regulatory agencies being Slow as "Misinformed, or potentially misleading"
Show this thread
4
Replying to
I agree, but I think we need to distinguish people who genuinely believe X for good vs. bad reasons.
Sometimes, believing X suits them, and they have therefore (tacitly, maybe) systematically applied a much lower standard of evidence to arrive at their desired belief.
1
Replying to
Many of these people are NOT acting in good faith. There's also a grey area where people should know better. They're emotionally committed to not processing facts that would challenge their narrative. This behaviour is bad and there's no incentive to be charitable about it.
2
Replying to
They might be trying to do what is right, but that doesn’t make their conspiracy theories into facts.
Social media shouldn’t morally sanction them as liars, but it makes sense for it to stop the spread of disproven nonsense.
Replying to
the Cathedral of Expertise was established / grew from the worry that "folk beliefs" don't have any quality control process (e.g. people eating fish tank cleaner tablets as a covid prophylactic)
problem is, it's become clear that the Cathedral doesn't have quality control either
1
2
well, that's not quite true - it's just that the metrics that _do_ get controlled for are things like prestige and consistency of message
perverse incentives strike again
2